Cn 8 wed13_leeds_feedback_on_wb5_sessions_fleskens

358 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
358
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cn 8 wed13_leeds_feedback_on_wb5_sessions_fleskens

  1. 1. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 Feedback on WB5 DESMICE DESMICE = Desertification Mitigation Cost Effectiveness Model Luuk Fleskens Xian 13 October 2010
  2. 2. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 Brief report on Monday’s sessions  Data requests were first made at the Rabat meeting, then sent by e-mail late 2009/begin 2010. Little response was received so a set of two Information Sheets was developed and sent out to study sites in June 2010 with a reminder in August.
  3. 3. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 Brief report on Monday’s sessions  Data received from Botswana, Crete, Italy and Portugal  Other sites are working on it and promised to submit soon  Further gradual refinement needed based on first simulations Feedback:  Clarification what can be done with DESMICE  DESMICE can be applied with other grid-models if you do not apply PESERA  Some (all?) study sites will need tailored approach
  4. 4. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 SLM strategies can tackle land degradation Technologies need to be targeted to the problem at stake and tested Scale of application is usually at the local field level Experimental research is unfeasible for regional assessment DESMICE is intended for regional assessment of local SLM solutions
  5. 5. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 The PESERA-DESMICE modelling framework PESERA : Grid-based regional scale soil risk assessment model (grid 0.1 – 1 km), modified to take into account effect of various SLM strategies and other degradation types DESMICE : New model scaling up SLM feasibility assessments from local to regional level using spatially-explicit financial cost-benefit analysis Combined, these models can assess effects of policy scenarios on uptake of SLM and mitigation of land degradation
  6. 6. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 Applicability limitations are defined for selected SLM strategies Landform Soil depthLand use Distance to stream Slope Applicable Not applicable SPA01 Reduced contour tillage SPA04 Boqueras water harvesting Aggregate applicability
  7. 7. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 Case 1: applicability limitations for Torrealvilla catchment, Murcia, Spain SPA02 Vegetated earthen terracesSPA01 Reduced contour tillage SPA04 Boqueras water harvesting SPA03 Organic mulch under almond trees SPA05 Organic almond/olive production
  8. 8. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 Case 2: applicability limitations for Oum Zessar catchment, Tunisia TUN09 Jessour TUN10 Gabion checkdam TUN11 Rangeland resting TUN14 Recharge well TUN12 Tabia TUN13 Cistern
  9. 9. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 Biophysical effects of SLM strategies are simulated: TUN11 The effect of resting grazing land is simulated by an increased level of biomass. Grazing animals remove a significant part of the vegetation, thereby exposing soil to degradation risk. In non- grazed areas vegetation re-establishes itself reducing in turn the susceptibility of soil to water (and wind) erosion. TUN11 Rangeland resting Net effect (in kg m-2) on average vegetation biomass of resting grazing land (TUN11) vs. a without case of 30% of biomass being grazed, Oum Zessar catchment, Tunisia
  10. 10. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 Spatial variability in investment costs is considered Variable input quantities (environmental factors) Variable price of inputs (market/transport factors) e.g. as a function of slope options to take into account topography, transport type, infrastructure, etc.
  11. 11. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 Spatial variability in investment costs is considered: TUN11 The standard cost reported for TUN11 is 50 US$ ha-1 for fencing. An allowance was made for transport costs of fencing material (up to US$3.36) and slope (up to US$3.00). The resulting map of investment costs ranges from US$ 50.11 (blue) – US$ 54.91 (red) TUN11 Rangeland resting
  12. 12. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 [A – B – C + D] = Annual cash flow series for each technology and grid cell Production foregone without case X Value (€) X Value (€) Foregone costs of: - Production Costs of: - Production - Maintenance - Other (e.g. area loss) DC BA Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009 Cash flow series are constructed for each grid-cell Production with applied technology
  13. 13. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009 Y INV MAI PRO 0 -52 - - 1 - -5 0 2 - -5 0 3 - -5 0 4 - - 200 Y INV MAI PRO 0 - - - 1 - - 20 2 - - 20 3 - - 20 4 - - 20 Without case TUN11: Rangeland resting Rangeland provides fodder, the equivalent of which needs to be purchased if rangeland resting is applied. We assume here that the benefits from rangeland resting can be obtained in the fourth year after investment, after which productivity falls back to without case level. Cash flow series are constructed for each grid-cell: TUN11 The economic life of technologies is basis for the comparison
  14. 14. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 Spatially- Explicit Net Present Value (NPV) Technology options Potential adoption (based on profit maximisation) Valuation of cash flows over same time horizon and discount factor Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009 Financial cost-benefit analysis is performed for each technology
  15. 15. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009 NPV of rangeland resting (US$ ha-1) Oum Zessar catchment, Tunisia Financial cost-benefit analysis is performed: TUN11 Employing a discount rate of 10%, the cashflow series for rangeland resting lead to negative Net Present Value (NPV) in the whole area where the technology is applicable, ranging from -90 US$ ha-1 to -50 US$ ha-1.
  16. 16. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009 Once previous steps have been done scenario analyses are possible NPV (US$ ha-1) of rangeland resting after accounting for subsidies The Tunisian Government has put subsidies on the practice of rangeland resting. A 30 US$ ha-1 contribution towards fencing and a 70 US$ ha-1 maintenance payment to cover fodder purchases. According to these preliminary analyses, the low productivity of rangeland and height of the maintenance payment are not in balance. NPV of rangeland resting (US$ ha-1) Oum Zessar catchment, Tunisia
  17. 17. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009 Another option is cost-effectiveness analysis The figure shows the number of litres of water saved from running off per dollar of public money invested in rangeland resting. Contrary to financial viability, which is highest in the Matmata mountain range, cost- effectiveness is higher in plain areas. Due to the scarce vegetation cover in the plains they can benefit much from increased vegetation cover. Run-off prevented (litre US$-1 ha-1) by subsidies provided for rangeland resting
  18. 18. Panel Review Meeting, Brussels, 17th June 2009 But: perhaps no technology that delivers the target! But: overruling farmers’ profit maximisation (negative returns?) or applicability limits (environmental risk?) A. Policies affecting farmer’s valuation of effects B. Policies enforcing adoption of technologies C. Policies stimulating/ enforcing environmental targets Presentation Rabat, 23rd October 2009 Different types of policy scenarios...

×